That would be too bad; Snake is a neat little spot. Fortunately, this wouldn't affect any of the state's best climbing areas, just a few out-of-the-way spots. Nevertheless, as you said, it would be a bad precedent. IMO, it is a little ridiculous to allow hunting but not climbing, but that is just my biased view of the relative impacts of those two sports. I guess that the hunting/fishing lobby is much more influential than climbing access groups.

Also, for those unfamiliar, the most-notable area affected by the ban, Snake Mountain, is a fairly lightly visited ice/mixed crag. It has a few short WI4-ish pillars, and a spectacular overhang with beasty hard mixed lines. It doesn't get a ton of visitation, but it is a notable resource nonetheless because it contains the hardest bolted mixed/drytool routes in the Northeastern US.

While I will acknowledge that VT DFW doesn't manage any of the really notable crags, they are partially involved in managing other state owned land that does have some very important climbing. Marshfield, Smugglers Notch and Willoughby are all on State owned land and this is the first step towards closing those to climbing. In general I have found the folks at Forest Parks and Recreation to be very reasonable and with the best interests of the public in mind. The folks at Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife are devoted only to maximizing deer population size and will do whatever they want to keep folks who don't agree with their version of outdoor recreation (which is generally limited to "nature watching") off State Land. Either way several of the WMA's have some nice potential.

To help put this in perspective, all Wildlife Management Areas in Vermont have all been purchased for various wildlife values, or recreational opportunities specifically related to those wildlife values. That includes fishing, hunting, trapping, wildlife viewing, hiking, educational purposes, etc.

WMAs were purchased through a combination of hunting, angling, and trapping license fees and Pittman-Robertson (PR) funds. PR money comes from excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, etc. In other words, these Fish and Wildlife properties were purchased by hunters, anglers, and trappers, and the priorities outlined in the proposed regulation reflects that.

So here's my question: would you be willing to pay for access to some of these climbing spots?

So here's my question: would you be willing to pay for access to some of these climbing spots?

That answer depends on the location and the amount charged. We already pay at some sites, namely national parks.

The land was purchased by the state with taxpayer money. Just because the state decided to raise the money by taxing a specific user group doesn't mean that only that specific group may use the land. Highways are funded in part by gas taxes, but I have just as much of a right to ride my bicycle on the road as a car who's paying gas taxes has the right to drive on the road.

I would suggest that folks read the proposed change. Some of the allowed uses are quite baffling if you consider that the goal is wildlife management. For example, they specifically allow harvesting of wild edibles(deer, bear, and turkey food)...you can go out and pick berries, fungi, plants...these are things that wildlife need to survive...but you can't climb on rocks? You are allowed to ski, snowshoe, hike through deer yards in the winter...stressing and disturbing the deer population...but you can't climb on rocks. Many of us climbers do buy our hunting and fishing licenses and some of us even hunt or fish on the same land on the same day that we climb.

This is serious. Not just for climbing but there are extensive mountain biking trails that run all over Snake Mountain. It would be an absolute shame if we were banned from our beloved recreational activities on this public land. We need to rally! Spread the word and comment on the link above.

Hey Folks, If you plan to submit comments to F&W regarding WMAs (the type of properties that would be affected), know that CRAG-VT is working with the Access Fund to find the context of the proposed rule change. I would respectfully request that you keep all comments civil, and please indicate to F&W that climbing is a low impact sport that is compatible with wildlife observation and preservation. It might be helpful to note that climbers are often also hunters and fishermen and do contribute to local businesses and that climbing locations are in short supply in VT. F&W will be receptive as long as we keep it courteous and civil. Thanks, -Seth Maciejowski President, CRAG-VT

At a climbing area in a different northeastern state, there are partial closures of the cliffs due to nesting birds. I've heard some local climbers participate in exploring and checking to find out which sections of the cliffs have nests, when the birds are there, even progress on the hatching + health of young birds. Remarkably the closures for climbing are only selected sections and for as short a duration as sensible.

Another climbing area in another northeastern state, I've never heard of any climber participation about nesting birds (actually it's not clear that there have actually been any nesting for decades). At this area, instead of closing selected sections, the entire cliff is closed to climbing, and for a much larger percentage of the year than the first area.

Kenr, Peregrine falcon closures in Upstate NY, VT and NH are pretty common. Biologists assess what kind of buffer zones nesting peregrines require then post the cliffs accordingly. While this is a ban that is voluntarily adhered to by the climbing community, we have very good compliance and a strong working relationship with the biologists. The proposed rule for Fish and Wildlife administered Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) is a permanent ban on all recreational rock climbing unless expressly permitted and is not associated with a particular plant or animal species.

I am deeply concerned by and opposed to the proposed rule changes in 10 V.S.A App.15 Rule Governing Public Use of Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department Lands. As a lifelong Vermonter and avid outdoorsman I use WMA lands for hiking, fishing, harvesting of edibles(fungi and berries), wildlife viewing, and rock climbing to name a few. Of these activities the one that is the least invasive and causes the least damage to any habitat is rock climbing. We actively climb at Bird Mountain, have done so for years, and historically it's been a climbing destination for well over 50 years. To ban climbing here or on any WMA, on public land that my taxes help support, and that my fishing license subsidizes would be a travesty. Rock Climbers are the lowest impact and most conservation minded users around, we help protect endangered species, work with Margaret Fowle to identify and protect peregrine sites, don't use motorized vehicles to access areas and tread lightly. Rock Climbing is vertical hiking but unlike hiking there is no erosion because you are on rock.

I am bummed about this new law, but not really surprised. Climbers are conspicuous when climbing, especially when bolting (with power tools) and scrubbing lichen. Both of these are activities that I hypocritically am uncomfortable with. It is also hypocritical for most any other person in VT to find fault with them. We are, after all, putting in roads to get to the great outdoors.

My flimsy point is that any time I've heard mention of climbing in the general media/ news, it is pointed out that bolting and scrubbing are necessary or common practices. Not to mention the perception of us as extreme crazies with death wishes. We should procede with caution and take pains to limit/ reverse this perception.

Marshfield is a very popular wildlife viewing area, and is very quiet and rural. Brian Pfieffer (sp?) is a go- to birding expert and lives right nearby. The place is rabid with hunters who see us as interlopers. (never mind the trash and fire pits of the general public/ high school kids).

These are the toes we need to avoid stepping on. A little ass kissing couldn't hurt either.

Perhaps if you strap a shotgun on your rack, you can claim to be hunting.

This sounds too bizarrely bureaucratic for words. This coming from a state with virtually no restrictions on firearms ownership and use, resident or not. But you can't climb on some rocks on public land? If you can't climb go shooting!

Sounds like this is the first draft and they are taking comments and testimony and then two more rounds of votes before finalized some time early winter. I believe that quite a few folks spoke up at both meetings and the access fund was present at the northern vt meeting.

The more comments in support of allowing climbing as an existing low impact activity can only help.